The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-6288IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) WILLIAM HARLAN 1265 Main Street Oberlin, PA 17113 Case No. 16' 6v?S " Civil Term VS. Civil Action - LAW Defendant(s) & Address(es) JAY L. WAKEFIELD 2419 New York Ave, 1 FI Camp Hill, PA 17011 C-> N C= rn m :z rri C') PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS =;u -a TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: C -t3 Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attorne / heriff. Please Circle choi < r-) Date : October 1, 2010 Signature of Attorney Print Name: Matthew L. Owens Address: 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 101 Harrisburg, PA 17109 Telephone #: 717-909-2500 Supreme Court ID Number: 76080 • • • • • WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: Jay L. Wakefield, State Farm, State Farm Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Geico and Geico Insurance Company. YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Deputy 7 othonotary//G{ Civil Division jo Ze Date: /Q by :9 WE 'f F_ d6 C_ , O ? --t M 00 dig !G SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor ~"..~a~~p pi ~uufGrr(T~ .~ t:; dpi ~ ~. ~Ffi~E.:;c ~...raiFF ~~/~~:;;, rJ}} _ ~ 1€.. ~ ~l Eel ~ ~(~1~+~'u7~y~~[/' E `r~~ iI l~ ~ 6Pt^' {~S rj `"~ a E.$~~1tV 1~1~ i aw ..a a s~ *~,. William Harlan vs. Jay L. Wakefield Case Number 2010-6288 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/04/2010 04:25 PM -Robert Bitner, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 4 2010 at 1625 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Jay L. Wakefield, by making known unto himself personally, at 2419 New York Avenue, Apartment 1 Fl, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $41.94 October 05, 2010 ROB RT BITNER, DEPUTY SO ANSWERS, ~~"~~ RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (C1 G9tmtySuite Sheriff. TEIPOSOfL Inc. FII~E~'-(l~'~'IC 2e~ ~ 0 QCi' 25 P~"3 2~ ''t1MBERL~ii1 ~t~~~~T'~, f'Ef~f~SYL!,'r;f'~!~`~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 10-6288 v. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE JAY L. WAKEFIELD, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #18184 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 10-6288 JAY L. WAKEFIELD, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., on behalf of the Defendant, Jay L. Wakefield, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C: By: ® i ev auch, squire ounsel f r Defendant r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 22"d day of October, 2010. Matthew L. Owens, Esquire Owens, Barcavage & Mclnroy, L.L.C. 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 101 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By:_~ - ~~ Ke n D. R uch, Esquire C nsel fo Defendants "~F' Tf~~~ ~ ~T ~` ~F1CL t~.,or,~~~~,Y, ZJ10 OCT 2S pip ~~ t., ~~ ~FP P~ 5~ ~~ 00~''~~ r~.~(,s~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 10-6288 v. PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE JAY L. WAKEFIELD, COMPALINT Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #18184 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 10-6288 JAY L. WAKEFIELD, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: The Prothonotary Kindly rule the Plaintiff, William Harlan, to file a Complaint in Civil Action within twenty (20) days. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE ~ SKEEL, P.C,i.- By: iq.~f~au~h, Esquire nsel for Defendant Y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 10-6288 JAY L. WAKEFIELD, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. RULE AND NOW, this day of ~~-- 2010, upon consideration of Defendant's Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service, or suffer judgment Non Pros. Rule issued this ~ 5~ay of ~~- , 2010. rothon ary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 22"d day of October, 2010. Matthew L. Owens, Esquire Owens, Barcavage & Mclnroy, L.L.C. 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 101 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: n D. auch, Esquire nsel or Defendants FILt-G-0 IF- F I L OF Ti1E iii' ?? IiU i} ? ty f 201 ( F T.1'1 10' 1 ulj r 7 a`':' ? 4 r Gt4 t ?t J `f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, Plaintiff, V. JAY L. WAKEFIELD, Defendant. CIVIL DIVISION NO. 10-6288 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER (Jury Trial Demanded) TO: Plaintiff You are hereby notified to file a written Response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days From service hereof or a judgment May be entered against you. Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Summers, McDon ell, Hudock, Firm #911 Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #18184 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 10-6288 JAY L. WAKEFIELD, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Jay L. Wakefield, by and through his counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a collision occurred between the vehicles identified on the date, time, and place of the subject accident. The remainder of the allegations are admitted or denied as set forth below. 4. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a collision occurred between the vehicles identified on the date, time, and place of the subject accident. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 7 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Paragraph 8 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Paragraph 9 and its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Jay L. Wakefield, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. COUNTI 13. In response to paragraph 13, the Defendants reiterates and repeats all his responses in paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth at length herein. 14. Paragraph 14 and its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Paragraph 15 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Paragraph 16 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Paragraph 17 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Paragraph 18 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Paragraph 19 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Paragraph 20 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Paragraph 21 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Paragraph 22 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Paragraph 23 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Paragraph 24 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Paragraph 25 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Paragraph 26 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Jay L. Wakefield, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 27. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 28. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 29. To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiffs ability to recover non-economic damages. 30. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania Law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiff in this action. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Jay L. Wakefield, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: A- ! -? L %l Kevin D. Rauch, squire Counsel for Defendant VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that he is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has furnished to his counsel and information which has been gathered by his counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has given to his counsel, it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, he has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: "--?-/-1 Jay L. Wakefield #18184 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 31St day of January, 2011. Matthew L. Owens, Esquire Owens, Barcavage & Mclnroy, L.L.C. 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 101 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants OWENS, BARCAVAGE AND MCINROY, LLC BY: Matthew L. Owens, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 76080 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 101 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 909-2500 Attorney for William Harlan tnR?^i R0 ? 11 «, r; 1 U -I'MSERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVAINIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HARLAN, Plaintiff NO.: 10-6288 CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. JAY WAKEFIELD, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO MARK MATTER SETTLED, DISCONTINUED AND ENDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above matter settled, discontinued and end . Date : Signature of Plaintiff's Counsel: Matthew L. Owens, Esquire Owens, Barcavage & McInroy 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 101 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-909-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff